About your Search

20130706
20130714
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
in order. we have seen some good news with an economy that recovers. we have seen our annual deficit numbers go down, although i have to be somewhat -- look with somewhat jaundiced eyes when the press is saying hallelujah, this year our deficit may be only $746 billion. that still is not -- is not good enough. and the solution set that we're looking for is not that far away. so in a moment, i'm going to make a couple comments and then ask my colleague, the medicare of our budget committee, to once again make an offer to proceed with regular order, something that has been the back stop of this debate about rules, something that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, perhaps appropriately, beat us over the head for three years on about the fact that we ought to have a regular order around the budget. well, it's now been 110 days since the united states senate approved a budget. after a marathon session that went until 5:00 in the morning, a session that i think even our colleagues on the other side who didn't vote for the budget would agree was open and appropriate to rules and
rates to the market without a cap to protect students. this proposal would pay down the deficit on the backs of students, trading national debt for student debt. trading national debt for student debt. it is unacceptable, the letter goes on, to use student loans as a vehicle for deficit reduction, especially when the federal government is projected to make $51 billion on student loans just this year. so that will be the vote tomorrow. and, madam president, i ask consent that this letter, along with the list of the organizations supporting the one-year extension, appear at this point in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: so that's -- that's really the vote tomorrow. are we going to keep 3.4% or are we going to allow it to double? that's the essence of the vote tomorrow. now, there is a lot of different ideas floating around about what to do, how to do this, but in just about every single case, every one of those bills, if you project out over the next couple of three years, will raise interest rates higher than 6.8%. so again, that's why extending i
meltdown. and federal dollars are very scares. as we face this huge deficit together, we have to look at every option available to meet the challenges of doing more with less. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i move to strike the last word. i rise to oppose the amendment of the the gentleman from georgia. his amendment would cut $15 million. i should say for the record, we cut $220 million from last year's number and so we have substantially reduced this account. let me just say, too, the basic science program within the department conducts research with a staggering potential for benefits for our nation. cutting the program further, which is what he seeks, threatens our long-term energy security, first american scientists and industry and blemishes our credibility as a world-wide leader in basic science programs. i oppose his amendment and urge others to do likewise. i yield back. ms. kaptur: i move to strike the las
million jobs and actually reduce the deficit by $24 billion. what a remarkable trifecta of accomplishments, supporting one of the world's most cutting edge agricultural economies, supporting significant employment and job creation and significantly cutting our deficit. what's not to love, madam president, in that farm bill? well, the house passed a series of amendments that eliminated our hard-fought bipartisan compromises and has effectively doomed the bill. similarly, the senate here passed a bipartisan water resources development act to modernize america's water infrastructure all over the country, including drinking water, waste water treatment, shipping channels. it got 83 votes here out of 100 in the senate. it's being slow walked in the house over ideological objections about the power of the government on environmental authority. after a historic committee markup, after the congressional budget office said it would reduce the deficit by $150 billion in the first decade and $700 billion in the second, this senate passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan immigration reform bill. i think o
at a time of sequestration and a time of deficits, how can we spend more on fossil fuels when we should be spending less? in addition, this bill needlessly increases the funding for weapons activities and defense programs. at a time where we're winding down our involvement in two wars that have been very costly in lives and dollars this last decade, and that's why i'm offering an amendment with representative quigley that would put the v-16 back to the agency's request level that would save taxpayer dollars and reduce the deficit. this bill actually increases funding by over $20 million for these ongoing missile programs. at an era where americans should expect the government to look at where these moneys are invested. there have been growing concern raised by the air force's own blue ribbon review panel about the effectiveness of the b-61 and that's why the price -- the price for this program has continued to rise dramatically and confidence in the missile program has dropped. in fact, some of our nato allies like germany have called for the b-61's to be removed from their boarders. ag
the deficit and ultimately address the towering debt that we're facing as a country, not only today but even the worse debt we'll be facing given the current trend we're on in the future. mr. chairman, remember when we were told to get our tires properly inflated and people snickered saying, is this an energy policy? well, at least those ideas actually saved energy and actually saved cost. albeit a drop in the bucket. but now in one of its latest efforts, along comes the department of energy and proposes a regulation to impose destructive and unnecessary energy efficiency standards for ceiling fans. and like much of their agenda, it is completely counterproductive. it's big government run amuck, another example. it's an example of the complete disregard bureaucrats have for the practical implications of the regulations that they issue. the department of energy contends that a certain amount of energy would be saved by requiring greater efficiency from ceiling fans, as the gentlelady mentioned and explained. now, of course, that ignores the fact that ceiling fans are already far more energy e
to the deficit? no. instead we are recklessly pushing forward this partisan bill designed to inflict grave harm. and even more pernicious is the substance of this bill which throws millions of american families aside. this removes the entire nutrition title from the farm bill with no indication that the majority intends to take up those programs in the near future. let's be clear about what this means. food stamps are the critical central area of our social safety net. helping over 47 million americans, nearly half of them are children. 99% of recipients live below the poverty line. 75% of households leaving this aid include a child, a senior citizen or an individual with a disability. these are the individuals and republican hat this majority has just called extraneous. they are not extraneous. the bill before us would mean he death now of the food stamp program, the other nutrition programs that have been part of the farm bill for decades. this bill is immoral and it is a serious risk to our society. 532 farm groups sent the speaker a letter opposing the splitting off of nutrition program. bi
of boosting the economy and reducing the deficit, terms that republican lawmakers may be able to digest. in specifics, it reads that reform will grow the economy by 3.3% and bring down the deficit by close to $8850 billion over the next -- by close to $850 billion over the next 20 years. we're back after the break. actually mean it. >> you're putting out there something that you're proud of. journalists want the the story and they want the right story and the want the true story. >> you can say anything here. >> i spent a couple of hours with a hooker. >> your mistake was writing a check. >> she never cashed it! >> the war room. >> compared to other countries with tighter gun safety laws our death toll is just staggering. >> the young turks. >> the top bankers who funneled all the money to the drug lords, no sentence. there's just no justice in that. >> viewpoint. >> carl rove said today that mitt romney is a lock to win next pope. he's garunteeing it. >> joy behar: say anything. >> is the bottom line then that no white person should ever, ever, ever use the "n" word? >> yes! >> only on
in the future and paying off our deficit. we simply cannot afford to spend taxpayer dollars on research, the private sector can do better and taxpayers should not be asked to provide additional support to an industry that consistently has record-breaking profits. our energy sector has some of the of the most promising ideas and technologies in the world. our energy policy, however, is horribly outdated. h.r. 2609 slashes research and development for renewable energy by some 60% and adds additional money that the administration either want -- neither wants nor needs to research fossil fuels and clean coal. at the same time it continues to spend far too much on fossil fuel r&d. in fact, we dole out more fossil fuel subsidies than any other country. more than $500 billion in 2011. and they often go to expensive projects with little upside. the fact is we don't need to spend taxpayer money this way. fossil fuel companies are highly profitable, posting some of the highest profits in the world, and they can shoulder than other r&d costs. -- their own r&d costs. this is a clear example of dupl
. host: we'll let you go there. guest: i think that the trade deficit had been an issue for the u.s. there have been a lot of jobs, essentially we opened up ourselves to the world from a global trade perspective and we didn't really put a lot of emphasis on making sure that the other countries that we were doing business with had, say, the same labor standards, the same pay levels. so many american workers were thrown into competition with a huge global competition with workers willing to be paid a lot less. so a lot of that work was transferred there. some people say that's the way it goes and how the global economy moves around. that might be the case. but that doesn't mean there aren't jobs americans can't do. and the definition of doing something that your caller -- i agree that there are do-nothing jobs in every organization probably. but the point that your caller was making i think there are -- the definition of doing something is very broad and there are a lot of thing that is need to be done in this country including services jobs that aren't getting filled by the private
with the law. and would boost our economy and make our country safer, reducing the deficit by about a trillion dollars over the next two decades. i remind the speaker there is no shame in passing bills both parties can support. americans want their elected officials to work together to fix the nation's problems. that's what we did in the senate. i promise the formula will work in the house of representatives as well. the speaker should try that. sticking to the hastert rule is preventing the house from passing legislation to reform the ailing postal service. he refused to even take it up last congress. didn't even take it up. sticking to the hastert rule prevented the house from passing a measure that would give brick-and-mortar stores parity. we passed it on a bipartisan vote here, mr. president. i mean it's heartbreaking all over america, i see it in nevada to go by these strip malls and you see these places that if they had the advantage of not having to pay sales tax -- that's what happens on line -- they would be in business. they would go back into business if the online -- the sales tax
for passage. today those of us who came to town to cut spending, reduce the deficit, reduce the size of government, and make reforms have a real opportunity to walk the walk. this farm bill does all of those things. this bill is going to save taxpayers $19.3 billion. it's going to repeal or consolidate more than 100 programs at usda. and it's going to repeal the direct program. something that many of my farmers and ranchers back home are -- do not want to give up. the farm bill also does a couple other things. it is being considered separately on its own merits. as many in this body have called for, and it replaces antiquated permanent law so we don't face things like the dairy cliff tend of the year anymore. the bill before us reforms not just the politics of the farm bill, but the process as well. this farm bill has earned our support and i urge my colleagues to vote yes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. peterson: i yield two minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from maryland, mr.
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12